Section 18 SC/ST Act Bars Anticipatory Bail Where Prima Facie Public-View Caste Offence Is Disclosed: Bombay High Court

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging an order of the Special Judge refusing anticipatory bail to four accused persons in connection with offences registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

The Bench of Justice Y. G. Khobragade, while relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain (2025) reiterated: “Section 18 of the SC/ST Act 1989 excludes the applicability of Section 438 of Cr.P.C., it creates a bar against grant of anticipatory bail in absolute terms in relation to arrest of a person who faces a specific accusation having committed the offence under the SC/ST Atrocities Act within the public view.”

Background

According to the prosecution, the informant, a member of a Scheduled Caste community, alleged that during a dispute near a public water tap, the accused abused her using caste-based insults, assaulted her, and threatened her family. The complaint stated that the incident occurred in a public place and within public view, and that witnesses intervened to separate the parties.

The accused contended that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay and was a counterblast to an earlier non-cognizable complaint filed by one of them against the informant. They argued that no such incident occurred and that the allegations were fabricated due to neighbourhood disputes.

It was further submitted that the investigation had concluded and a charge sheet had been filed, and therefore, custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The accused relied on precedent to argue that anticipatory bail is not absolutely barred under the SC/ST Act where no prima facie offence is made out.

Court’s Observation

The Court examined the legal position governing anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act and referred to Supreme Court precedent summarising that Section 18 creates an express bar against the grant of anticipatory bail where specific accusations disclose commission of offences under the Act.

However, the High Court clarified that the bar is not mechanical; it applies only where the allegations, on their face, make out a prima facie offence. The Court reiterated that this determination must be made from the FIR itself without entering into an evidentiary analysis or conducting a mini-trial.

Relying on precedent, the Court noted that an offence under Section 3(1)(r) is not established merely because the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The insult or intimidation must be on account of the victim’s caste identity. The Court also emphasised that for such an offence to arise, the alleged conduct must occur in a place within public view.

Applying this test, the Court found that the allegations against two of the accused specifically described caste-based abuses allegedly uttered at a public tap in the presence of others. Witness statements and spot records indicated that the incident occurred in a public setting. Therefore, prima facie offences under the relevant provisions of the SC/ST Act were disclosed against those accused.

The Court carefully distinguished the role of each accused. While the materials indicated caste-based abusive remarks attributable to two accused, there were no specific allegations that the other two accused had uttered caste-based insults. Statements on record did not attribute such conduct to them.

Consequently, the Court held that the statutory bar under Section 18 could not be invoked against persons against whom no prima facie caste-based offence was disclosed. The trial court’s blanket refusal of anticipatory bail to all accused without such differentiation was therefore unsustainable in law.

The Court also noted that the charge-sheet had already been filed and that the interim anticipatory protection earlier granted had been complied with. This factor supported the continuation of protection for those against whom no prima facie offence under the special statute was made out.

Conclusion

The High Court partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the denial of anticipatory bail to the accused against whom prima facie caste-based offences committed in public view were disclosed and directed them to surrender before the investigating officer.

However, it set aside the impugned order insofar as it related to the remaining accused and confirmed their anticipatory bail protection during trial. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail stage and would not affect the merits of the case.

Cause Title: Yogitabai W/o Vinod Patil & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:6277)

Appearances

Appellants: B. R. Warma, Advocate.

Respondents: S. T. Mahajan, Advocate, V. M. Chate, APP

Click here to read/download Judgment